Im hoping someone can help me out with this. For years I have heard people talk about the need for a #1 WR and the statement "true #1 WR. What the heck constitutes a #1 WR? It can't be a guy with top end speed who can stretch defenses. We had one in a guy like Darryl "deep heat" Turner a number of years ago. He wasn't considered a number one then. In my mind Largent was the number 1 WR but he was often referred to as a posession guy. In my mind, a #1 WR is the guy who catches the most balls. But that notion doesn't seem to mesh with what the pundints usually talk about when referring to a #1. Regarding the Seahawks WR corps, the discussion usually comes around to the fact that there is no true #1 guy. Sydney Rice has been mentioned as having the potential to be a #1. But somehow he falls short.So what explicit criteria, skill set, or credentials are needed to make a guy a true #1 WR in the eyes of experts?

Who do you think is perceived ahead of Largent from his era? James Lofton or Art Monk? I think most non-seahawks would not only be happy to tell you that Largent was a true #1, but that he was the best #1 of the early 80's.

A #1 receiver is a guy that demands double-teams on most passing downs and at least some safety/LB help any time they are on the field.

They are not good at one particular area nor do they meet any specific size requirements (steve smith).

A #1 receiver has the same types of requirements that a #1 QB does - he may be stronger in one area but has to be great accross the board at all the other things. You can't have a #1 QB who is not accurate or can't throw at least a decent deep pass any more than you can have a #1 receiver with poor hands and only mediocre ability to get separation.

Sidney Rice is actually a pretty good all-around player but he's not an all around great player. He would be a more than adequate #2 receiver on a team that had a true #1. If he could work on getting more separation then he might get himself there this next season. To me that's the biggest weakness keeping him from that status.

Last edited by Hawknballs on Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I will take a stab at this. And I will say up front that there are probably only 6-8 true "#1"s in the league. Most teams don't have a 'real" #1 in the same way most teams don't have a shutdown corner, although so-called shutdown corners are more rare.

A legit #1 would start for every team in the league, is an all-pro and commands a double team on nearly every play. Elite.

There.

How's that?

(PS I love SRice's game but have always thought of him as a very good 1A--not a #1 but capable of much more production than we have seen from him this far--bring in a true #1 or another 1A and we would have a lethal combo)

Last edited by bestfightstory on Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

I think the notion of a #1 WR is very dumb and closed minded. When I hear the media refer to a #1 WR, they are usually talking about someone who is 6'2, and can run a 4.4. If they are 6'0 with above average speed, but can still get open consistently and make catches regularly, they are a "#2 WR type".

By this logic WRs such as Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Chad Johnson in his prime, Roddy White, etc were never #1 WRs. That is false.

It all comes down to if they can consistently get open and their QB can consistently find them.

The league's obsession with #1 receivers seems to be along the same lines as "top tier quarterback", "smashmouth running back", "shutdown corner", and "unmovable left tackle". Top 5-6 guys at all those positions really don't happen on the same team. A team is probably pretty elite with decent talent around and one or two top guys at any couple of positions.

#1 guys at any position should be a little broader-based than that. After all, there are 32 starters at every single position in the league.

World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.

i think the #1 notion is a bit overrated.. you have several successful teams on both sides of the spectrum as far as recievers go...

for instance: NE, GB, BAL, SEA all very successful this year.. Does any of those teams have a clear cut #1? not really, but they spread the ball around , and you have a few big plays here and there which any reciever on their squad could make.. Also the tight end plays a big part in the passing game.

the you have: DET, AZ,CIN, DAL , these teams have a clear cut #1 but are not as successful... You have one guy targeted 10+ times a game, if they have an off day, the team has an off day..

i prefer our style of offense, because any given reciever can be the difference in any particular game (matchup).. which is why i don't think a true #1 reciever will fit into our offense.. they won't see a ton of targets, we spread the ball around and run too much...

bestfightstory wrote:(PS I love SRice's game but have always thought of him as a very good 1A--not a #1 but capable of much more production than we have seen from him this far--bring in a true #1 or another 1A and we would have a lethal combo)

Exactly, I would bet if you lined up SidR across from Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson or Fitz (in a better offense of course) his numbers would probably get him to a solid 1A.

I agree with some other posters here in that I don't think we need a "#1 WR". I think a guy like DeAndre Hopkins could be a guy in an elite passing offense that puts up 1200 and 10 TDs, if in the right situation. Plenty of production for me.

VHawk wrote:Sydney Rice was wide open alot this year and think he will be a #1.

agreed. Rice was a #1 in Minnesota under TJack until injury took him out. Then his first year here we didn't get to see him play. This year he was back to his old form, but Wilson didn't see him on many, many plays. The guys is a true #1 when he stays healthy. If he stays healthy next season, I think everyone will see that.

Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."

Sidney Rice is a #1 in most offenses in the NFL, as long as he stays healthy. Is he a Fitz or Andre/Calvin Johnson type? No, but there aren't many of those out there. A true #1 has the coverages rolled his way and can still be effective, while also helping the other receivers be more effective by drawing the coverage to them.

I really doubt we'll easily be able to get a receiver better than Rice, or one as effective easily or cheaply. Rice's numbers should improve with the offense being open all year and Wilson taking the expected next step next season. Wilson improving his game, along with improved protection, will make Rice look better and better.

Using the term "#1" is too abstract. You have to look at in football speak. In an offense like the Hawks run, you have the X, Y and Z receivers (or split end, slot and flanker).

Rice is a traditional X receiver (split end), Tate is a traditional Y receiver (slot)..........so that leaves a gaping hole in the Z spot. So when people say we need a #1 receiver, they mean we need a good Z receiver, which traditionally lines up behind the line to avoid jamming, has blazing speed and can stretch the defense.

bestfightstory wrote:I will take a stab at this. And I will say up front that there are probably only 6-8 true "#1"s in the league. Most teams don't have a 'real" #1 in the same way most teams don't have a shutdown corner, although so-called shutdown corners are more rare.

A legit #1 would start for every team in the league, is an all-pro and commands a double team on nearly every play. Elite.

There.

How's that?

I agree but would add the following. A true #1 WR is also the guy that despite 3rd and long, everyone knowing the ball is going to him and being double-teamed comes up with the catch....

Seahawk Sailor wrote:The league's obsession with #1 receivers seems to be along the same lines as "top tier quarterback", "smashmouth running back", "shutdown corner", and "unmovable left tackle". Top 5-6 guys at all those positions really don't happen on the same team.

Sgt. Largent wrote:Using the term "#1" is too abstract. You have to look at in football speak. In an offense like the Hawks run, you have the X, Y and Z receivers (or split end, slot and flanker).

Rice is a traditional X receiver (split end), Tate is a traditional Y receiver (slot)..........so that leaves a gaping hole in the Z spot. So when people say we need a #1 receiver, they mean we need a good Z receiver, which traditionally lines up behind the line to avoid jamming, has blazing speed and can stretch the defense.

Pretty much everything I've learned about football is either from the internet or playing Madden, but I was under the impression that the split end was more a guy that stretched defenses and didn't rely so much on good route running, while the flanker could also stretch a defense but was a better possession guy who could draw double coverage. Basically I figured the #1 would more often than not play the flanker role. Like when Reggie Wayne took over Marvin Harrison's flanker role.

Of course I could be way off too.

"If the opportunity presents itself, we're going to come get you. You’re part of the family. You're part of us. You helped us start this thing." - John Schneider before releasing Michael Robinson

Seahawk Sailor wrote:The league's obsession with #1 receivers seems to be along the same lines as "top tier quarterback", "smashmouth running back", "shutdown corner", and "unmovable left tackle". Top 5-6 guys at all those positions really don't happen on the same team.

Unless you're the Seahawks.

I do think for our offense it would be effective to have a really studly number one receiver since we aren't running a spread where we are looking more at match ups and sometimes we might go with 1 WR sets where a really kickass WR would keep the defense a lot more honest. Plus who doesn't like being able to just throw at somebody even when they're covered.

Though what offense wouldn't be helped by a great receiver, I don't think it's that big of a need. We need more WR talent on the roster, but I don't think we need to go crazy trying to add a great one. Development of mid rounders is gonna be important.

Sgt. Largent wrote:Using the term "#1" is too abstract. You have to look at in football speak. In an offense like the Hawks run, you have the X, Y and Z receivers (or split end, slot and flanker).

Rice is a traditional X receiver (split end), Tate is a traditional Y receiver (slot)..........so that leaves a gaping hole in the Z spot. So when people say we need a #1 receiver, they mean we need a good Z receiver, which traditionally lines up behind the line to avoid jamming, has blazing speed and can stretch the defense.

Slot receivers are traditionally excellent route runners with good hand, which does not = Tate

AgentDib wrote:Who do you think is perceived ahead of Largent from his era? James Lofton or Art Monk? I think most non-seahawks would not only be happy to tell you that Largent was a true #1, but that he was the best #1 of the early 80's.

He was HOF caliber, duh. But you are missing the point. If Steve Largent were to enter the league now (time-travelling him and his college background from 1976 to 2013), nobody would be calling him a #1 receiver today. Partly because the label "possession receiver" would be applied and stick, and partly because of this amorphous fungible concept* of #1 receiver.

*As exemplified by this very thread.

49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.

Likely too much money though. If we can get rid of Flynn and let Tate walk next year it might be doable. Particularly if we front load the contract to take advantage of our cap space that will quickly disappear after next year (Kam/Sherman/Earl).

Still like the draft better though. Draft a second or third round WR and sign a guy like Jared Cook. Our offense will be dynamic.

#1 receivers are among the modern mythological creatures of the North America continent. In the minds of those who treasure these creatures, they are every bit as real as the mythological heros of ancient Greece.

The myth of the #1 WR. I would be interest to see just how many of the playoff teams have that unicorn known as a #1 WR. Let's start with the superbowl teams, Balt and SF. The Ravens don't have one, Boldin is the closest that they have but doesn't fit the mold spelled out in this post. He doesn't demand nor beat a double team consistently. Then we look at SF, where Crabtree is probably the closest they have as Moss is past his prime. Moss in his prime was probably as close as you get to the unicorn but not these days.

I'm not going to go through all the teams but if memory serves me I would probably say that Atlanta probably has the closest with either White or Jones.

Having a #1 WR just isn't that important in my opinion. WR's are 1 of 3 or 4 usually on the field and just don't touch the ball enough to warrant using high draft picks or spending tons of money on. That's why you always see them in FA after their team doesn't want to pay them. I would rather have 4 solid WR's than the unicorn. But that just me. If you have a good QB you don 't need a #1 WR.

oldhawkfan wrote:Im hoping someone can help me out with this. For years I have heard people talk about the need for a #1 WR and the statement "true #1 WR. What the heck constitutes a #1 WR? It can't be a guy with top end speed who can stretch defenses. We had one in a guy like Darryl "deep heat" Turner a number of years ago. He wasn't considered a number one then. In my mind Largent was the number 1 WR but he was often referred to as a posession guy. In my mind, a #1 WR is the guy who catches the most balls. But that notion doesn't seem to mesh with what the pundints usually talk about when referring to a #1. Regarding the Seahawks WR corps, the discussion usually comes around to the fact that there is no true #1 guy. Sydney Rice has been mentioned as having the potential to be a #1. But somehow he falls short.So what explicit criteria, skill set, or credentials are needed to make a guy a true #1 WR in the eyes of experts?

i would refer to an actual Corner who is considered one of the best in the League..Richard Sherman, who said that Julio Jones is a bring your A-Game if you hope to keep this guy from burning you big time,,Says he's not super fast, but has some outstanding moves, and brings it on every play, whistle to whistle.

Regarding Largent and his status as the best of his era; never was he considered the best wr in any year he played. Looking back through the seahawk colored glasses, he was the best. Year in and year out he was anywhere from top 10 to top 5. Perhaps it was because he played in Seattle. Perhaps it was because he was generally considered a possession wr.

We are a run first team. We ran the ball 55% of the time last year, which will hurt most of our receiver corps stats, thus precluding them from true #1 converstations. Because, you know, a "true #1" will have elite stats.

In the offense we run, we use TE's a lot. You'll see it a lot more once the line gets better at pass pro, like the end of the year. Also, with Wilson's progression will come deeper reads (3rd 4th and 5th options), and will familiarity our TEs will get used to Wilson and learn how to get open when he's scrambling.

What we really need is better depth and an upgrade to Baldwin's position. He's decent, but I think we can do much better.

Do you remember Lester Hayes, cornerback for the Raiders. The guy that used so much pine pitch on his arms, hands and uniform that he almost single-handedlygot its use banned. He always spoke of himself in third person.

He said something like: "Lester Hayes thinks the great Steve Largent is the bestreceiver he's ever played against'. Thats a #1 receiver.

Sgt. Largent wrote:Using the term "#1" is too abstract. You have to look at in football speak. In an offense like the Hawks run, you have the X, Y and Z receivers (or split end, slot and flanker).

Rice is a traditional X receiver (split end), Tate is a traditional Y receiver (slot)..........so that leaves a gaping hole in the Z spot. So when people say we need a #1 receiver, they mean we need a good Z receiver, which traditionally lines up behind the line to avoid jamming, has blazing speed and can stretch the defense.

Slot receivers are traditionally excellent route runners with good hand, which does not = Tate

I didn't say Tate was a good traditional slot receiver. But he's short and quick, which is why he fits the slot mold........and he did much better in 2012 with the route running and less drops.